Management Research Exam Questions - Assignment Example

a. Discuss what are nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio scales/variables. The fact of the matter is that even though information exists in almost every category of life, seeking to classify this information and define it is the process that allows humans to learn and understand things to a more complete degree. As such, the following discussion will be concentric upon the ways in which scales and means of measurement allow for this to take place. More specifically, the following analysis will engage the reader with a more complete and thorough understanding of nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales and variables. Firstly, the ordinal scale of measurement is one that attempts to provide a ranking of different orders. For instance, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th would be considered as ordinal. Such a ranking and listing is useful in many cases as a means of providing a degree of perspective for the researcher/reader that would otherwise not be reflected. Similarly, nominal variables are those that are generally entirely qualitative. As such, the differential between one item and another is predicated first and foremost upon the names that they individually represent and the means through which comparison can be drawn based upon this. Examples of nominal ranking and variables can be understood with regards to style, genre, and or biology. Interval scales/variables are useful with regards to understanding a degree of difference. For instance, the temperature scale of Celsius would be a perfect example. One can clearly denote that a temperature shift from 20-40 degrees in Celsius would represent a situation in which it becomes “twice as hot” as it was previously. As such, an interval scale need not only be applied to scientific measurement. As with so many of the other scales that exist throughout this discussion, an interval scale is also useful with regards to applying it in any litany of different situations. Finally, ratio type variables are useful in helping to measure or understand a type of differential between two otherwise non-comparable entities. Ratios are used in a great variety of different genres but are most specifically useful with regards to comparing impact or profitability of one group as compared to another. However, with that being said, ratios, although not used within the hard sciences to the same extent to which the other means of measurement are, can be effective in denoting the differential between two forms of measurement. Whereas it may seem as somewhat confusing what the reason and/or rational is behind all of these different forms of variables/measurement; however, the fact of the matter is that they all ultimately serve the same root purpose. This purpose is namely to allow the individual to categorize and define the broad levels of information that greet them during the course of the human experience. b. Discuss how each of them may be used in management research. Provide examples to support your discussion. A primary usage of the ordinal scale would be with regards to comparing and contrasting work performance based upon those that have been able to exhibit a very high percentage of efficiency/profitability or utility for the firm or organization in question. This ordinal scale is useful within the realm of management but should not be overused as there are unique human emotions and dynamics that tend to get lost when one focuses specifically upon a ranking of individuals or work goals that can be compared to one another. Ultimately, even though the ordinal scale is useful, the practitioner should seek to vary their approach to using this scale due to the fact that overuse would lend itself to something of a type of scientific management. The use of nominal variables is especially helpful with respect to allowing a particular stakeholder to understanding the realities of the work that is being performed. As compared to ordinal scales or variables, nominal ones do not require that an individual categorize or compare themselves based upon a ranking. Rather, the numbers alone are useful in allowing the management professional to understand what has taken place and how such work should be rewarded. Interval scales can effectively be used by a manager that is hoping to engage his/her stakeholders with an understanding of the fact that demonstrable hurdles exist that are necessary to overcome in order to experience a further level of profitability or success. By presenting information within an interval scale or within interval variables, such an understanding can effectively be related. In something of a similar manner, ration variables are able to represent an effective overview of where the individual employee/group is with regards to where they should be. In such a way, ratio variables are useful in motivation in ways that the others which have thus far been listed are not. Rather than merely understanding that any of these tools should be utilized over another one, the reader must come to an understanding of the fact that the sheer complexity and extent of information that exists within the world requires the utilization of a great many different classifications and categorizations as a means of making it understandable and easily related to. The job of the manager is therefore to seek out which of these specific approaches is the most useful with regards to representing information to their stakeholders. If one particular approach is insufficient and places too high a level of emphasis upon comparing and contrasting one individual or group of individuals to another, then an alternate means of representation can be chosen; equally suited towards engaging the stakeholders and representing the salient information in a reasonable manner. 2. Discuss the assumptions of Positivism and Interpretivism as paradigms for research. Your answer should mention differences and similarities in terms of ontology, epistemology, axiology, rhetoric, methodology and method. Where appropriate illustrate with examples from management research. Engaging with the assumptions of interpretivism, , the reader must accept the fact that the same measurements and statistical analysis that can be applied to the natural world cannot always correlate to the way in which the social constructs of order are arranged. In fact, what can be inferred, at least within the assumptions of interpretivism, is the fact that the epistemology of this particular point of view specifically separates quantifiable and measurable factors, the social realm. Whereas many other approaches focus specifically upon the manner through which identification and epistemology of specific viewpoint can be constructed, interpretevism not only attempt to affect this but also seeks to define the world outside of its own constructs. As such, the rhetoric, approach, and method that an individual would engage with respect to methodologically measuring interpretivism would stand starkly in contrast with respect to the way an individual would perform the same level of analysis with regards to positivism. Once again, the methodological approach that an individual who would seek to employ positivism might employ would be most concentric upon utilizing mathematical proofs and quantitative information in order to draw inference with regards to a specific understanding or approach. An axiom differential that most certainly exists with regards to anti-positivism has to do with the fact that the anti-positivist viewpoint engages with the understanding that certain activities, actions, emotions, and social constructs are ultimately not logical and cannot be defined in terms of simplistic approaches. Instead, they are granted, oftentimes meaningless systems that have been perpetrated throughout generations and find with respect to the individuals that further them. By means of comparison and contrast, positivists are of the opinion that an underlying causation and level of analysis can always be applied with regards the way in which social constructs are defined and represented throughout the world. Although a stark level of contrast to these two disparate approaches has thus far been engaged, it should also be noted that a level of similarity also exist. Whereas anti-positivism necessarily places a reduction in focus upon scientific measurement and the means through which mathematical proofs and traditional categorizations of human action can be engaged, it nonetheless still ascribed by scientific method and therefore utilizes many of the same approaches the positivism does as a means of proving its validity. Whereas anti-positivism does not see the world in terms of absolutes, at least in the same degree of positivism does, it nonetheless attempts to categorize and find the way through which social interaction and decision-making occurs. Ultimately, by understanding the differential that exists between these two, the researcher can more effectively determine which approach is the most useful infeasible with regards to engaging with a specific topic and/or seeking to define a situation in given matter. Much as with the discussion that was engaged in section 1 of this a brief response, neither positivism nor anti-positivism (the name oftentimes given to interpretivism) should be understood in and exclusive manner. What is meant by this is the fact that neither positivism nor anti-positivism has of course already been conducted with regards to the most feasible and best suited approach to a litany of different situations. However, regardless of the prior knowledge that currently exists, the researcher himself/herself is ultimately responsible for weighing the positives and benefits of both of these approaches and determining based upon these which particular engagement with the research can and should be represented. 3. Discuss the deductive approach to research and where appropriate illustrate with examples from business and management. A deductive approach to research almost invariably begins with a simple hypothesis. By means of contrast of comparison, and inductive approach attempts to utilize research questions as a means of narrowing the field of analysis and honing the perspective that the individual research will approach the issue to begin with. As can readily be seen by the reader, the differential between deductive and inductive research is specifically fabricated upon the fact that deductive research assumes whereas inductive research attempts to test and aim specific question with regards to the key issue or concern. Moreover, deductive research is oftentimes concentric upon the causality of a given issue or concern. Much as with many research tools, deductive theory is useful in helping to immediately center the level of research analysis upon a specific item and focus the attention of the audience and the researcher upon a given item. However, a clear and noted drawback with respect to this is the fact that deductive reasoning and research oftentimes leads the individual to prematurely select a topic and/or locus of focus that they might otherwise not have. Naturally, the pitfall that has previously been alluded to is lessened by the fact that an immediacy of specificity can be engaged with regards to it. Whereas each and every manager should be familiar with the indicative and deductive approaches, it is the researcher that should pay the most attention to the way that a particular issue is framed and/or the way to approach a topic that maximizes the degree of inference that can be garnered. Whereas inductive reasoning gives a greater degree of flexibility to the questioner, oftentimes a level of concrete analysis is necessary to perform; one that is akin to an understanding of if X + Y=Z then Y=Z-X. Naturally, not all deductive reasoning can lend itself to such a simple deconstruction; however, the case that has been listed offers a clear understanding of the means through which deductive reasoning can oftentimes exhibit a level of benefit that a more fluid and open-ended inductive reasoning cannot. Moreover, whereas it is extremely difficult to define variables within the realm of research, deductive reasoning has the added benefit of allowing the practitioner to define the variables based upon what is known in terms of immediacy and practicality. Although it is true that not every variable can be defined in such a manner of convenience, the fact of the matter is that deductive reasoning and research provides one of the most definitive tools through which the management practitioner and/or scholar can seek to define and understand any given situation or question. Rather than relying upon experiential knowledge, the more concrete form of deductive reasoning based upon “knowns” and seeking to draw inference with regards to the “unknowns” that might exists is a primary tool that will not likely be abandoned anytime in the future. Read More